Status of unmarried women in long term relationships should be taught in schools.

[prorsum]

A friend of mine has recently separated from her partner of 16 years, 2dcs under 14.

Legally she is entitled to nothing, common law wife is not a legal status. She has performed all the acts a sahm wife performs yet it counts for very little.

Her partner would not get married despite her wanting it and I know why, he knew.

She's not a money grabber, just wants some security for her children in case he meets someone else and has other dcs.

We've both done google to get some information as she cannot get legal aid and it's not happy reading.

I'm not man bashing, I think that it would be useful for both sexes to be aware of the implication of living together but it does impact more negatively on women.

Lets not forget that in the situation the OP describes, the woman knew her partner had been in a previous relationship that ended badly and had financial and legal repercussions for him. That was why he wouldn't marry her. In nearly 20 years it never occurred to her that if that affected him, there might be something she should know?

I think OP is being a good friend and is being generous to her. I don't think there is anyway at all she didn't know that she was in a more precarious position being unmarried than married. Perhaps she wilfully ignored it, perhaps she was too scared to acknowledge it, perhaps she knew there was nothing she could do about it so pushed it out of her mind, but she knew something about it. It isn't possible in her situation that she didn't.

How did she know to register the births? It's in the Bounty pack! Info is quite literally handed to you before you leave the maternity ward.

Exactly! The information was made available to the OPs friend independently of school - just as info about marrital status, legal rights etc is.

What if the OPs friend hadn't read the Bounty Pack? Would the OP consider it necessary for schools to teach pupils how to register births?

Peruvian You presume a lot in your post.

I did not blame her lack of knowledge on her schooling, I'm not blaming her for anything, she did not know what you obviously found out from your books, tv, radio and numerous magazines. I take it you know everything, I take it you know all the unknowns out there. I gather you've never said to yourself 'Well fancy, I didn't know that'. I have.

Why didn't the OP have that discussion with her friend before the relationship ended?
What's she doing to help other friends who may be in the situation right now?
School won't help them, although it might help her children think that they are never going to be in that situation and make their life-choices accordingly.

' I gather you've never said to yourself 'Well fancy, I didn't know that'. I have.'

I have, constantly. Then I've gone out an educated myself. Especially if it impacted on me and my dependents in a practical sense. That's what schools should be teaching.

I never got a Bounty pack. Not that I wanted one, but they're not universal.

Ah come off it OP, this "I take it you know everything then" guff is OTT. Its like oh you know the sky is blue, well aren't you the smart one.
You're acting as if this stuff is rare and esoteric knowledge. It's not in Latin and only held in universities. It's literally common knowledge.

Yes Hag and that was the point of my post which so many of you can't comprehend. An insert of the subject into a suitable lesson.

I did not have the discussion because at the time of the separation her DP made all the right noises. They sat down and discussed and agreed finances and he has stalled and backtracked at every turn. I'm a friend of them both and was glad they parted amicably.

I accept plenty; I know exactly where she went wrong but I'm not gonna castigate her the way all you knowitalls have done. I'm not. Never fall off those ivory towers people.

In my case it was the male half of the partnership who was financially at risk and I freely admit I only 'formalised' matters when my own finances became the issue - I don't think he ever would have and I could have screwed him right over, frankly.

I think there is an argument for more to be included in the Social Education syllabus (if this sort of thing isn't already in it) but I've heard people talk a lot of crap about tax and benefits and inheritance too so clearly a lot of people believe a lot of stupid stuff.
And some people will never listen anyway.

There is a lot of ignorance on this. It's easy to say that the information is everywhere. If it was, there wouldn't be so many people unaware of reality.

A lot of really vulnerable people get caught - they and their children should be protected.

I have friends who think all is ok because they get pension, death in service etc because their partner named them as beneficiary on death. They really forget to take account of the risk that the relationship may break down.

I have no idea of the answer, but marriage is not it for everyone. You need 2 willing partners for that.

I gather you've never said to yourself 'Well fancy, I didn't know that'. I have.

Of course I have! For instance, I didn't know that VA schools could ask for a financial contribution from parents until I read it on MN yesterday - but, if I'd chosen a VA school for my DD, I would have made sure I knew what the implications were before I registered her at the school.

in your OP, you say you think that relationship legalities should be taught at school - but you could apply that to any information that adults need to know in order to navigate life. Can you imagine the chaos in law courts if "I wasn't taught at school" was a legitimate defence?

Schools teach people to be responsible adults, which includes teaching them the skills to inform themselves of information they may be relevant to them. as your friend has applied those skills in other aspects of her life, it seems likely that she made a choice not to apply them in relation to her marriage.

Female friends I assume, tilder?

OP, again you can't grasp the difference between people not understanding you and disagreeing with you. Almost no-one does agree with you. What does that tell you?

There is a lot of ignorance on this. It's easy to say that the information is everywhere. If it was, there wouldn't be so many people unaware of reality.

I don't think anyone expects people to know all the details. But the basic fact that there are some legal differences in being married and unmarried, for example, is not something you've never heard of.

But then there seem to be a lot of people who are as you say totally unaware of reality. I think they prefer it that way! And a lesson they had in school a decade or two ago is hardly going to help with that.

It does work the other way round, too. We should be educating young girls that if they live with and have children with a workshy cocklodger, they shouldn't be marrying them!

I am so very glad that I never married my ex, as handing over half of my assets would have been very galling after all the emotional abuse (house, car etc. solely in my name as he never earned enough to contribute a penny). And before anyone asks, no he wasn't a SAHP to enable me to work and earn the money. Nothing he did enabled me in any way!

So maybe a general lesson on relationships and how being married affects things legally, both good and bad i.e. after someone dies, when you split up, next of kin stuff and so on.

I can actually. The difference is that you and your ilk think you're rational, clear sighted, call a spade a spade people. In fact you are judgmental.

In my op I did not ask for sympathy for my friend, I've got that covered thanks, I asked about how it might be possible for instances such as hers to be avoided and threw a suggestion out there. The vast majority of responses have been about her recklessness and the posters wide knowledge of all things.

It tells me nothing I did know already. Thank you for your input.

The thing is, we can't base education policy and write curriculums based on the assumption that the majority of parents are going to fail on their duty to educate their children in basic life skills. It would be wrong, and it wouldn't work anyway.

There is plenty that in theory we could teach to girls to protect themselves, but equally there is just as much that we could teach to boys. And if we go too far down that road, then were just teaching children that they can't really trust anyone and that they should always work on the assumption that people will try to screw them over, and I don't really want that to be a message my children get.

I have an ilk? Cool.

You posted an idea and were rude to anyone who disagreed. You were judgemental yourself, you were naive, and you misrepresented. And you haven't taken a single thought on board other than your own. I do wonder why some people bother talking to others when they are so very sure of themselves and have no actual interest in the opinions of others.

I work in financial planning, years ago I had a boss who was very hot on making sure unmarried women knew exactly what they were entitled to in a relationship (financially speaking). He did it by the shock method:

"Always remember Ms X that the difference between a common law wife and a prostitute is that a prostitute has rights."

Most of them (OMG a few didn't) got the message and made sure they had paperwork to protect themselves and assets in joint names.

Here endeth the lesson.

I hope you looked in the mirror when you said that Wint

I asked about how it might be possible for instances such as hers to be avoided and threw a suggestion out there.

The way that "instances like hers can be avoided" has been suggested by nearly everyone on this thread - that people like your friend take personal responsibility for making informed choices. I think relying on schools to educate young people on the details of legislation is a poor use of resource - by the time those children become adults the law would have changed.

Take gay relationships, for instance. Since I left school, the age of consent has changed, and there have been two significant legislative changes that mean anything I may have been taught at school is obselete.

hag male and female actually. Although yes generally the woman is more vulnerable.

prorsum apologies for the lack of constructive help. I do remember having a chat about domestic violence (including a leaflet) after each child was born. Can't remember if it was the midwife or health visitor. I do remember being shocked at the stats.

Maybe something similar with advice on financial security? Still won't help those with abusive/ coercive partners or those that have an objection to marriage. FWIW I fall in the latter category (hopefully not the former ) and we got married because of the children.

Peruvian media discussions on this subject only began around seven or eight years ago when noises about changing the law began as far as I am aware

I would love to know where the common law wife thing ever came from. How can something so widely thought be untrue and always been untrue ? I can remember an old boyfriend 30 years ago telling me as we'd been cohabiting x amount of time I would own half what was his.

tilder no problem. I was only putting a suggestion forward for the future. That seems to be ungraspable to some. Wasn't asking for a handout for her or for Lawyers to be paid to go into schools and give lessons.

I love they way people think she has not taken responsibility. It's this constant line that bugs me. She not fucking asking them for anything. i'm not asking for anything. It's a discussion about providing knowledge. In a school.

All I can constructively do is inform all young people of my acquaintance of the pitfalls of not having a legal document and I will.

"I think relying on schools to educate young people on the details of legislation is a poor use of resource - by the time those children become adults the law would have changed."

I don't have a crystal ball, so would want the law as it currently stands reflected in PSHE/SRE topics - whether that's drugs, sex, gangs, relationships, voting rights, civil rights/responsibilities, whatever. I think it would be very wrong to exclude topics from those existing curriculum topics just because one day they might be different.

A vaguely related thought occurred to me: I learned about Benelux in geography. The relationship with Europe was important, and quite possibly going to change. I don't think that made it wrong for political geography of the then current day to be on the curriculum.